JPG or RAW?

[CallumW]

Which one is best to use?
I have seen alot of people saying about how they had converted from RAW to JPG ect.
That brought up a few questions in my head so anyone with answers please?
What are the advantages of using RAW if any?
Is it worth using it?
What program could i get for free which would convert RAW to JPG?
I use JPG at the minute should i change?

Alot of questions i would like alot of answers
Thanks in advance

Callum

[SmartWombat]

Which one is best to use?

Either, it depends what you're doing.

RAW will store the image using more bits for each colour, so you have more to edit and adjust exposure.
But the file sizes are larger than with JPG.
And you have to convert them to another format like JPG, TIF, or GIF so that you can print them or use them on the web.

So if you want your photos quickly, say to email out during the day while you're shooting, or to print up for customers to take away during an event - then RAW isn't the right format.

If you're taking your time, and don't want instant results but to edit the images later, then RAW is what you want to get the maximum latitude at the start of the editing process. You can't put the quality in later.

[jorgemonkey]

I use either depending on what I'm shooting.

If I'm shooting a sporting event, I'll shoot Jpeg since I'll shoot 1000+ photos in a day. When I'm out on a nature hike or doing portraits, I'll shoot RAW since I'm not shooting nearly as many photos and I can take time to work on them.

At my day job shooting products, I shoot jpeg as well since they're just going onto our website at low res. No need to shoot RAW there

[Franglais]

The image coming off your camera sensor (the RAW image) is coded as 3x12 bits. When the camera converts it to JPG the coding is reduced to 3x8 bits. This is enough to represent 16 million colours, far more than the human eye can distinguish. JPG sounds fine.

The problem with JPG is when you have to make adjustments to it. Imagine you want to correct a colour cast or the exposure or make some parts of the image lighter. You only have 8x3 bits to play with the result quickly looks artificial and harsh. With RAW you have the full 12x3 bits that came off the sensor. You get a much better result by editing the RAW file and then converting to JPG.

The other advantage of RAW - and I'm not quite sure how it works - is the ability to get back highlights that have burnt out. There's something magical bringing detail back into cloud formations with the RAW editor.

I don't use any free RAW editors. I use Nikon Capture which is rather expensive (it's been replaced by VX)

[Dylan8i]

what are some free raw editors? i don't have any program (that i have found) that i can even open a RAW file to experiment with.

[another view]

what are some free raw editors? i don't have any program (that i have found) that i can even open a RAW file to experiment with.

With Nikon, doesn't Picture Project open RAW files (.NEF)? I think that's the one that comes with almost all of their cameras.

[straightarm]

what are some free raw editors? i don't have any program (that i have found) that i can even open a RAW file to experiment with.

AFAIK, RAW files are manufacturer specific, so a Canon raw file is a differnt format to a Nikon raw file.

As a Canon user I can only write abour converting Canon raw files. The options for me are

use Canon's own software that was bundlded with the camera, either zoombrowser or Digital Photo Pro

or, use Pixmantec Raw Shooter essential, which is a piece of freeware

http://www.photo-freeware.net/raw-sh...essentials.php

[livin4lax09]

one question to add to this...not all that important, just curious. my 10d records RAW as .CRWs, and my 1d as TIFF. what's the difference? just seems strange, I would think the manufacturers would stay with the same filetype.

[WsW-WYATT-EARP]

I attended a tamron workshop with Don Gale - He shoots the fuji s5 i think it was and the RAW files from them were something else too - RAF

[WsW-WYATT-EARP]

my .02 - with the price of media I don't see how you can't be shooting in RAW. Besides the option to be able to change your white balance and exposure? Just seems to me to give so many more editing options. To convert them to JPG just takes a few seconds. If you need them fast just batch them to jpg.

[Franglais]

what are some free raw editors? i don't have any program (that i have found) that i can even open a RAW file to experiment with.

On my system I can open and edit my Nikon RAW files with Paint Shop Pro and ACDSee. However the result is pretty bad - grainy, colour casts - nothing like the perfection I get from Nikon Capture. There is also a free plug-in for Photoshop, which is also supposed to be poor.

Nikon just published a codec for VISTA that allows you to view RAW files directly.